The proposed framework is based on a firm’s actual activities, its market presence and risk profile, and to achieve this, a proportionate approach is proposed. The proposal includes:
- new and simpler prudential rules for the large majority of investment firms which are not systemic, without compromising financial stability; and
- amended rules to ensure that large, systemic investment firms which carry out bank-like activities and pose similar risks as banks are regulated and supervised like banks. As a consequence, the European Central Bank, in its supervisory capacity, (the Single Supervisory Mechanism) would supervise such systemic investment firms in the Banking Union. This will ensure level playing field between the large and systemic financial institutions.
Firms are divided into three classes.
- Class 1 – Those systemic investment firms which carry out certain bank-like activities (i.e. underwriting and dealing on own account) and have assets over €30 billion. These systemic firms will be fully subject to the same treatment as banks.
- Class 2 – For larger non-systemic firms, the rules introduce a new way of measuring their risks based on their business models. For firms which trade financial instruments, these will be combined with a simplified version of existing rules.
- Class 3 – The capital requirements for the smallest and least risky investment firms will be set in a simpler way. The rules will be comprehensive and robust enough to capture the risks of investment firms, yet flexible enough to cater to various business models and ensure that these firms can remain commercially-viable. These firms would not be subject to any additional requirements on corporate governance or remuneration.
The proposals are still being discussed – most recently ECON published a draft report setting out their views and proposals for amendments. Once the Directive is finally adopted, an implementation period of 18 months is envisaged before the new regime starts to apply. We expect implementation in 2019.
This is hopefully the beginning of the end for the more disproportionate parts of CRD for many investment firms. For non-MiFID investment firms, the FCA may take the opportunity to align its own rules with the new approach. Whilst there will be some simplification of prudential compliance for some investment firms, it may not reduce regulatory capital requirements for all and indeed, for some firms, the prudential burden may well increase – for example, exempt CAD firms.
We therefore recommend that you start the process of working out what category you fall into, modelling the capital you will need and how to plan for any shortfall and what your group impacts are likely to be. We can help you do all of this.
It should be noted that ICAAPs remain an important prudential supervisory tool. If the proposed regime is to achieve its objectives, we expect firms will need to continue to demonstrate that their ICAAPs are a realistic basis for setting more relevant internal capital requirements and Pillar 2 add-ons.
Please get in touch to find out how we can help you prepare for the changes and challenges ahead.